| Date |
Text |
| 2022-11-05 01:33:38 | TRAFFIC COMMENTS |
| | 1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A REVISED FULL TRAFFIC STUDY, |
| | WITHOUT THE TRAFFIC-CONCURRENCY-PURPOSES-ONLY |
| | ASSUMPTION/CONDITION. A SECOND METHODOLOGY MEETING TO |
| | DISCUSS MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE SETUP, IF |
| | POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND LOS DETERIORATION ARE |
| | IDENTIFIED OR PREDICTED |
| | 2) SATISFIED. PROVIDE COUNTY TPS LETTER, ONCE AVAILABLE |
| | 3) SATISFIED. PLEASE NUMBER EACH TABLE IN THE TRAFFIC |
| | STUDY |
| | 4) SATISFIED. IN THE TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |
| | SUMMARY TABLES PLEASE INSERT THE RESULTS FOR THE |
| | FOLLOWING SCENARIOS: EXISTING, FUTURE NO-PROJECT, |
| | FUTURE-WITH-PROJECT |
| | 5) SATISFIED. IN A SEPARATE TABLE SHOWCASE EACH OF THE |
| | VEHICULAR MOVEMENTS (I.E. LEFT, RIGHT, STRAIGHT) THAT |
| | RESULTS IN A LEVEL OF SERVICE E OR F |
| | 6) SATISFIED. THE QUEUE ANALYSIS SEEMS TO FOCUS ON |
| | DROP-OFF OPERATIONS ONLY, WHILE IGNORING POTENTIAL |
| | INSTANCES OF CONCURRENT PICK-UP ONES, WHICH ARE |
| | CONDUCTED AT THE SAME LOCATIONS. PLEASE ADDRESS OR |
| | FURTHER ELABORATE SUCH CASES |
| | 7) NOT SATISFIED. IN APPENDIX C, PLEASE SHOW THE VALET |
| | PATHS ALONG THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE GARAGE. THE TRAFFIC |
| | STUDY DATED 10.26.22 IS MISSING APPENDIX MATERIAL |
| | 8) NOT SATISFIED. IN APPENDIX C OR SHEET A-102 CLEARLY |
| | MARK THE VALET STALLS. THE TRAFFIC STUDY DATED 10.26.22 |
| | IS MISSING APPENDIX MATERIAL |
| | SITE COMMENTS |
| | 9) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CLEAN TRANSPORTATION SPECIFIC |
| | SITE PLAN FOR THE GROUND FLOOR. SHOWCASING |
| | TRANSPORTATION RELATED FEATURES (E.G. ROADWAY WIDTHS, |
| | DRIVING AISLES, PARKING STALLS, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, |
| | DRIVEWAY, GATES, CROSSWALKS, SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT |
| | MARKINGS ETC.) PROPERLY LABELED AND DIMENSIONED. SHEET |
| | C-400 IS A STARTING POINT. |
| | 10) SATISFIED. IN THE TRANSPORTATION SITE PLAN, PLEASE |
| | SHOWCASE BASIC CURB DETAILS (E.G. DRIVEWAY, CURB CUTS, |
| | PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PARKING STALLS, ETC.) ON THE |
| | OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE BETTER ROADWAY DETAILS ON |
| | THE OPPOSITE SIDE ALONG PINE AND BUTLER |
| | 11) SATISFIED. PROVIDE STRIPING PLANS FOR EACH ROAD |
| | FRONTING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | BETTER ROADWAY DETAILS ALONG PINE AND BUTLER. |
| | 12) SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR GARBAGE |
| | TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND OUT OF THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC ENVELOPES AND |
| | WHEEL PATHS CLEARLY DISTINCT AND DEFINED. ANALYSIS |
| | SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A SEPARATE FILE/DRAWING. PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME AND SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING THE |
| | ANALYSIS. ANALYSIS SUBMITTED ON 8/26 IS NOT PROPER; THE |
| | CITY CAN PROVIDE A SAMPLE REFERENCE ANALYSIS. SHOWCASE |
| | MANEUVERING OF A BOX TRUCK IN AND OUT OF EACH OF THE |
| | PROPOSED LOADING ZONES. SHEET C-901 SHOWS SEVERAL |
| | ENCROACHMENTS ALONG EACH OF THE DEPICTED PATHS; PLEASE |
| | ELABORATE ON THE VEHICLE MOVEMENT/POSITION BY THE |
| | GARAGE RAMP-UP LOCATION. |
| | 13) SATISFIED. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF FIVE ACCESS |
| | POINTS/DRIVEWAYS. CITY CODE 94-312(1)(B)(1) ALLOWS A |
| | MAXIMUM TOTAL OF FOUR. PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY. |
| | CONVERSATION WITH CITY STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE TRAFFIC |
| | ENGINEERING. |
| | 14) SATISFIED. THERE ARE THREE DRIVEWAYS ON BUTLER ST, |
| | PER CITY CODE 94-312(1)(A): MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESS |
| | POINTS ONTO EACH ROW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH |
| | 75+ UNITS IS TWO. PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY. |
| | CONVERSATION WITH CITY STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE TRAFFIC |
| | ENGINEERING. |
| | 15) [OVERRULED] NOT SATISFIED. PER CITY CODE |
| | 94-312(4)(C): ACCESS TO ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN A |
| | PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE LOWEST |
| | FUNCTIONAL CLASS OF ROADWAY HAVING FRONTAGE ON THE LOT. |
| | GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY TO ACCESS THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT THROUGH TWO LOCAL ROADS (BUTLER AND PINE |
| | ST), THE N FLAGLER DRIVEWAY IS NOT WARRANTED, AS IT |
| | FRONTS AN URBAN COLLECTOR. PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY. |
| | CONVERSATION WITH CITY STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE TRAFFIC |
| | ENGINEERING. |
| | 16) SATISFIED. INSTALL A HIGH-VISIBILITY PEDESTRIAN |
| | CROSSING CONNECTING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE |
| | EASTERN PROMENADE EITHER MID-BLOCK OR AT THE EXISTING |
| | EASTERN RAMPS (NORTH OF PINE AND SOUTH OF BUTLER. IN |
| | CASE OF THE FORMER, CONNECT THE EXISTING EASTERN RAMPS |
| | WITH STANDARD CROSSINGS. PROVIDE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS |
| | AND DETAILS FOR SUCH HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSING. ALSO |
| | INSTALL RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB) AT |
| | SUCH CROSSING, PROVIDE A DETAIL SHEET FOR SUCH SAFETY |
| | ENHANCEMENT |
| | 17) SATISFIED. PROPERLY DEPICT AND ANALYZE VALET |
| | LOCATIONS AND OPERATIONS. THE ANALYSIS MUST BE |
| | CORROBORATED WITH VEHICLE PATHS TO/FROM THE GARAGE. IN |
| | THE QUEUE ANALYSIS PROVIDE A DETAILED BREAKDOWN FOR |
| | EACH PROCESSING TIMESTEP (I.E. VEHICLE |
| | ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE, VALET PICK-UP/DROP-OFF, VALET WALK |
| | TO/FROM THE PODIUM OR GARAGE). THE BUTLER ST LOCATION |
| | WOULD NOT PROPERLY OPERATE WITH A SINGLE LANE, AS THE |
| | QUEUE OF DROP-OFF VEHICLES WAITING TO BE PARKED WOULD |
| | BLOCK THE ONES MEANT FOR PICK-UP. |
| | 18) SATISFIED. A BY-PASS LANE MUST BE PROVIDED AT EACH |
| | VALET SERVICE LOCATION. PROVIDE A BY-PASS LANE AT THE |
| | BUTLER VALET STATION OR PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS |
| | SHOWCASING THE U-TURN MANEUVER DEPICTED IN THE VALET |
| | OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |
| | 19) NOT SATISFIED. IF APPROVED AND FEASIBLE, AND FOR |
| | SAFETY PURPOSES, THE BUTLER DROP-OFF LOCATION MUST BE A |
| | MINIMUM OF 12-FEET WIDE. EVEN IF VALET OPERATIONS HAVE |
| | BEEN DISCONTINUED, SUCH LOCATION SHOULD BE WIDENED FOR |
| | SAKE OF SAFETY DUE TO THE FREQUENCY OF EITHER DRIVERS |
| | OR PASSENGERS GETTING IN/OUT OF THE VEHICLES; |
| | OTHERWISE, PLEASE CONSIDER REMOVING OR RELOCATING SUCH |
| | AREA. SAME COMMENT AND REQUIREMENT APPLY TO THE PINE |
| | STREET DROP-OFF LOCATION |
| | 20) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE AND CLEARLY MARK A |
| | TURN-AROUND SPACE AT EACH DEAD-END OF THE GARAGE. |
| | PROPOSED TURN-AROUND SPACES ARE NOT PROPER, THOSE CAN |
| | BE CONSIDERED BACK-OUT SPACES. ONE OF THE PARKING |
| | STALLS NEAR THE END WALLS MUST BE DESIGNATED, AND |
| | CORRESPONDING PAVEMENT MARKING & SIGNAGE PROVIDED. |
| | UNLESS AN AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR EACH OF THE DEAD-ENDS |
| | PROVING THAT A 3-POINT TURN IS FEASIBLE, THE LATEST |
| | PROPOSED TURN-AROUND AREAS ARE NOT SATISFACTORY. SHEET |
| | A-102, NORTHERN-EASTERN DEAD-END, CONVERT THE PROPOSED |
| | TURNAROUND SPACE ON THE RIGHT OF 2-25 TO A PARKING |
| | STALL AND DESIGNATE 2-27 AS THE TURNAROUND AREA. APPLY |
| | THE SAME CONVERSION TO THE NORTH-EASTERN DEAD-END IN |
| | SHEET A-103 AND A-104 FOR 3-25 AND 3-27, 4-25 AND 4-27, |
| | RESPECTIVELY. TURN-AROUND SPACE IS MISSING IN SHEET |
| | A-105 FOR THE NORTH-WEST DEAD-END |
| | 21) SATISFIED. CLEARLY MARK AND DIMENSION THE REQUIRED |
| | LOADING ZONE(S). PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME AND SHEET NUMBER |
| | SHOWCASING SUCH FEATURE |
| | 22) SATISFIED. PROVIDE PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE |
| | NUMBER OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES, |
| | INCLUSIVE OF ADA AND BICYCLE ONES. PROVIDE DOCUMENT |
| | NAME AND SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING SUCH ITEM. PER CITY |
| | CODE SECTION 94 TABLE XV-3 THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF ADA |
| | STALLS REQUIRED IS TWENTY (20). MOREOVER, THE NUMBER OF |
| | ADA STALLS SHOULD HAVE A MUCH HIGHER DISTRIBUTION ON |
| | THE GROUND FLOOR AND THE FIRST LEVEL OF THE GARAGE. |
| | PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY |
| | 23) SATISFIED. CLEARLY MARK AND DIMENSION EACH OF THE |
| | HANDICAP STALLS |
| | 24) [NOT APPLICABLE] PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND |
| | MANAGEMENT (TDM) STRATEGIES. CONVERSATION WITH CITY |
| | STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. CITY CODE |
| | FOR CMUD CORE I DOES ENCOURAGE IMPLEMENTATION OF TDM. |
| | MOREOVER, TDM WOULD BE STRONGLY RECOMMENDED IN THE CASE |
| | THE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOWS INTERSECTION LOS DEGRADATION |
| | DUE TO THE VEHICULAR VOLUMES GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT |
| | 25) [TO BE SATISFIED AT ENGINEERING PERMITTING] ALLEY |
| | SHOULD BE DESIGNATED ONE-WAY. PLEASE COORDINATE WITH |
| | PUBLIC WORKS PERTAINING PREFERRED DIRECTIONALITY, IF |
| | ANY SANITATION VEHICLES WOULD BE TRAVERSING THE ALLEY, |
| | AS WELL AS REACH OUT TO EVERY AFFECTED PARCEL OWNER FOR |
| | NOTIFICATION AND APPROVAL PURPOSES. |
| | 26) SATISFIED. SHOWCASE THE FULL EXTENT OF THE ALLEY ON |
| | THE TRANSPORTATION SITE PLAN. NOTE: THE ACTUAL WIDTH OF |
| | THE ALLEY SHOULD BE SHOWN AND DIMENSIONED, INCLUSIVE OF |
| | BACKYARD LOTS, DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING STALLS OF THE |
| | ABUTTING PARCELS |
| | 27) [TO BE SATISFIED AT ENGINEERING PERMITTING] PROVIDE |
| | AND SHOWCASE CORRESPONDING SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT |
| | MARKINGS ALONG THE ALLEY. NOTE: ONE-WAY SIGNS SHOULD BE |
| | INSTALLED THROUGHOUT ITS EXTENT AND ACCORDING TO |
| | ABUTTING PARCELS TRANSPORTATION CHARACTERISTICS |
| | 28) SATISFIED. EXPLAIN THE USE OF THE PARKING AREA |
| | ALONG PINE STREET. |
| | 29) [TO BE SATISFIED AT ENGINEERING PERMITTING] |
| | RESTRIPE FLAGLER TO ACCOMMODATE A 11-FEET WIDE |
| | NORTHBOUND LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANE, BEGINNING JUST NORTH |
| | OF THE HIGH-VISIBILITY PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. TO |
| | ACCOMMODATE SUCH FEATURE, REMOVE ALL ON-STREET PARKING |
| | PAVEMENT MARKINGS ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF FLAGLER |
| | BETWEEN BUTLER AND PINE, AND INSTALL A 5-FEET WIDE BIKE |
| | LANE WITH A 2-FEET DOUBLE STRIPED BUFFER IN LIEU OF THE |
| | PARKING STALLS |
| | 30) [OVERRULED BY ADMIN] DRIVEWAY ON FLAGLER SHOULD BE |
| | RIGHT-OUT ONLY. LEFT-TURN OUTBOUND MOVEMENTS SHOULD BE |
| | FORBIDDEN. INSTALL CORRESPONDING SIGNAGE, CORRECT |
| | DRIVEWAY GEOMETRY, EXTEND THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY MEDIAN |
| | ISLAND AND DESIGN ITS TERMINAL TO CHANNELIZE THE |
| | RIGHT-TURN OUTBOUND MOVEMENTS AND IMPEDE THE LEFT-TURN |
| | ONES |
| | 31) SATISFIED. IF ANY DRIVEWAY GATES ARE PROPOSED, |
| | PLEASE SHOWCASE THE 20-FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE |
| | BACK OF THE SIDEWALK |
| | 32) [TO BE SATISFIED AT BUILDING PERMITTING] INSTALL |
| | DIRECTIONAL (EAST-POINTING) NO-PARKING SIGN 40-FEET |
| | UPSTREAM FROM THE BUTLER AND FLAGLER INTERSECTION |
| | 33) [TO BE SATISFIED AT BUILDING PERMITTING] BASED ON |
| | THE AUTOTURN ANALYSES, INSTALL NO-PARKING SIGNS ALONG |
| | THE NORTHERN SIDE OF BUTLER IN ORDER TO FACILITATE |
| | LARGE VEHICLES TURNING MOVEMENTS |
| | 34) [TO BE SATISFIED AT BUILDING PERMITTING] INSTALL |
| | NO-PARKING SIGNS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD ALONG THE |
| | SECTION OF PINE STREET FRONTING THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT |
| | 35) SATISFIED. THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF |
| | THE SIDEWALK NEARBY THE PINE ST DRIVEWAY SHOULD BE |
| | REDUCED, AS IT IS UNSAFELY HINDERING PEDESTRIAN FLOW IN |
| | THE PROXIMITY OF THE CROSSWALK |
| | 36) [TO BE SATISFIED AT BUILDING PERMITTING] PROVIDE A |
| | PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS MENTIONED IN THE TRAFFIC |
| | STUDY |
| | 37) [TO BE SATISFIED AT BUILDING PERMITTING] PROVIDE A |
| | CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. PLEASE REFER TO CITY CODE |
| | SEC. 84-246 FOR DETAILS |
| | |
| | VALERIO ORICCHIO |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| |
Print |
